The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1887-10-08
DIR. HERRICK JOHNSON.

advocated by the prohIbitionist party
of this country. DR.. Johnson's state
ment is announced a. authorita-
tive and truly representative OF
g the views of his party. In consid-
ering it, therefore, we may fairly be
y said to contemplate a political cTedo,
and if any one of its articles prove to
be fallacious the cause advocated by
V the party is in that much weakened,
if all Prove false the cause of existence
' of the party ceases, and the sooner it
dies the better. With such a test we
can see no rdison d'ehre whatever tor
DR.. Johnson's political party, for the
platform laid down for it by him ap-
s pears to be, where not sophistical even
worse.
DR.. johnson begins his argument by
laying down what he considers to be
"Me ground of prohibition" This he
says, sis solely on the ground of lis
evil effects upon society, and not at all
on n ground of the inherent evil of
the act itself.' The doctor then de-
fines mala IN Sc, as evils in themselves,
and mala proAibita,a s evils prohibited,
and constructs an argument which is
devoid of point to prove that the first
may become the second. This, of
course, is granted. He then attempts
to prove that a thing which is not an
evil in Itself may be xalum prohi6ita.
Not to split haih on 4ha meaning of
words here is the error. According to
right, and hence according to law
writers, an act must be a public wrong
before it can be lawfully prohibited.
Perjury is a wrong, homicide is a
wrong, setting fire to ones own house
and thereby endangering the houses of
others is a wrong, stealing is aswrong.
These are the illustrations of his first
position, and hence to reverse his con-
clusion illustrates the truth, thus
Clearly the inherent rightfulness or
wrongfulness of an act has all to do
with the prohibition of it by public
law To state that many things which
are wrong in themselves are not pro-
hibited by law, is no answer to this
inevitable conclusion. The statement
that things which are right in them
selves .the law often prohibits' is
erroneous. The whole of the doctors
argument hangs upon this faulty prem
ise, and Is therefore worthless.
The doctor having satisfied himself
upon this point writes :-"One need
only have this in mind to see the alb
sudity of the charge that prohibition
proceeds upon the false assumption
that alcohol is a poison, and that any
degree of its habitual use is wrOng.'
Prohibition proceeds upon nothing of
the kind. Prohibition is on the ground
of the effects of the liquor traffic on
society and not at all ON the ground
that alcoholic liquor is a poison, and
any use of it is wrong" Here the
doctor in trying to extricate DR.. Cros-
by from a supposed fog falls into a
real one, from which his little trick in
logic as to "crimes'' and ssins" cannot
extricate him. If alcohol is not a poi
son, and if any degree of its use is not
wrong, and if prohibition does not
proceed upon that assumption, where
does it find the ground for the assertion
that the effects of the liquor traffic upon
society are evil? 1t is not a poison, il
is not wrong 10 use it, yet it should be !,
malum prohibita, why? For some /;
supposed evil effect, already conceded
people will see that this is reductio dd
absurdum. "The question as to whether +,
the drinking of a glass OF wine is a sin
or not, has no more to do with the pro-
hibition of the manufacture and sale of
intoxicating liquor for beverage pur- (,
poses, than the question whether the
construction OF wooden dwellings is a /;
sin or not has to do with the %problbi- (
ton of building frame houses" The
law as to building wooden houses is a i
police regulation, as is the restriction /
or adjustment of saloons, to which all
agree, but suppose some crazy political
party were to arise demanding the
prohibition of the erection and sale of
all houses, what would the good doc +,
tor think of thatP alcohol is not a
poison, and any degree of it's habitual
use is not wrong hence the statements
are parallel. A.,
But here is one place at which we (
take issue with DIR. johnson as to the
principles of his party. We believe that
the prohibition party is more rational
than this interpreter of its position and
purposes. Prohibltionists as a class
believe alcohol to be a poison, and sa
degree of its habitual use to be an evil,
a SIN. What do we hear from their
orators and their d~octrinaires? A pro-
hibition orator mounts the rostrum and
what does he do? He begins by paint
ing a horrible picture OF the sin OF
drink; he pictures the drunkard's
home, his wretched wife, his desolate
children. He recommends total absti-
hence as the only safety. He depre-
Gates the temperate use of liquors as
the first step to intemperance. He de-
nounces whisky, wines and other
liquors as poisoDs. Often he goes so
far as to unchurch Christians who differ |
from him, and to allege that where it !
is thought to benefit the sick they |
~esld-hatter- die than depend upon
alcoholic liquors to keep them alive.
Always he ridicules The claim that
they are necessary as a medicine. He
piles up statistics 10 prove that nine
tenths of the ills of life come from
drink-disease, insanity, crime and all
wretchedness. His conclusion is, in
evitably, that the use of liquor is, per
Sc, a sin. Then follows the proposed
remedy, and here the doctor is again
at fault, because the orators OF his
party land its writers, too, claim hal this
remedy is prohibition. A remedy for
what? For unthrift, for misuse of the
home and for the sin of drink. Prohi-
bition, then, is the remedy for these.
Hence, it necessarily follows, that the
aim Of prohibition is to make men who
were bad, from drink, good, by absti-
MI l. -. H..